Cureus. 2023 Sep 29;15(9):e46196. doi: 10.7759/cureus.46196. eCollection 2023 Sep.
ABSTRACT
Aim Injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) and leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin (l-PRF) are both blood-derived products used in regenerative medicine and dentistry. They contain platelets, growth factors, and leukocytes, which can have antimicrobial properties to some extent, but their primary purpose is tissue regeneration and wound healing. i-PRF and l-PRF may have some indirect antimicrobial properties due to their composition and ability to enhance tissue healing and immune responses, and they are primarily used in dentistry for their regenerative and wound healing capabilities rather than as standalone antimicrobial agents. This study aims to compare the anti-microbial activity of i-PRF and l-PRF against oral microbes. Methodology This study included 30 patients who were selected using G*Power software version 3.1 (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) calculation with the population size. The plaque samples were collected from the subjects using area-specific Gracey curettes used for scaling and root planing to remove plaque and calculus from the teeth and root surfaces. The collected plaque samples were transferred to a tube containing 5 ml of saline (sterile saltwater). The purpose of using saline is to preserve the microbial content of the plaque sample without altering the microbial composition. To obtain a uniform solution, the samples in the saline-containing tube were vortexed for 5 minutes. After vertexing, a small amount of the suspension (0.1 ml) was taken for further analysis. The 0.1 ml suspension was used to plate blood agar using the streak method. A loop or needle is used to streak the sample back and forth across the surface of the agar, leading to the dilution and separation of the bacteria. Results Results state that i-PRF has a maximum zone of inhibition (2.19±0.47 mm) when compared with metronidazole (0.14±0.09 mm). It can be stated that platelet concentrates demonstrate better antimicrobial activity due to their higher oxygen metabolites which help in the aggregation and internalization of microorganisms, which enhances the clearance of pathogens from the bloodstream. Paired t-test has been used for the comparison between the two groups, and the p-value is >0.05 stating that the difference is statistically significant. Conclusion The present study states that i-PRF demonstrated better antimicrobial efficacy as compared to l-PRF. Hence, i-PRF helps in reducing microbial load at the periodontally infected sites when compared with l-PRF.
PMID:37905284 | PMC:PMC10613344 | DOI:10.7759/cureus.46196
